FIGHTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: THE DEMOCRATIC RACE AND CLIMATE POLITICS - JIM ORCHARD | MARCH 2020 - AWS
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
FIGHTING THE ELEPHANT IN
THE ROOM: THE DEMOCRATIC
RACE AND CLIMATE POLITICS
JIM ORCHARD | MARCH 2020
The United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney is a university-based research centre, dedicated to the rigorous analysis of American foreign policy, economics, politics and culture. The Centre is a national resource, that builds Australia’s awareness of the dynamics shaping America — and critically — their implications for Australia. UNITED STATES STUDIES CENTRE Institute Building (H03), City Rd The University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia +61 2 9351 7249 us-studies@sydney.edu.au USSC.EDU.AU Research conclusions are derived independently and authors represent their own view, not those of the United States Studies Centre. Reports published by the United States Studies Centre are anonymously peer-reviewed by both internal and external experts.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary 02 Introduction: A growing consensus on Paris and the Green New Deal 03 Differences in campaign positions 04 Why is a position on nuclear power important? 06 What happens if fracking is banned? 08 The cost of decarbonisation and who provides the money 10 Summary 12 Implications for Australia 13 Endnotes 14 About the author 15 This report may be cited as: Jim Orchard, “Fighting the elephant in the room: The Democratic race and climate politics,” United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, March 2020. Cover photo: Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez hold a news conference to introduce legislation to transform public housing as part of their Green New Deal proposal outside the US Capitol, November 2019 (Getty)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The climate and decarbonisation policies of lead- While the climate positions of the leading candi-
ing Democratic presidential candidates suggests dates are relatively consistent at a macro level,
the party has become more unified and more there are important differences in the details.
progressive on this topic since the end of the These include estimates of the cost for reaching
Obama administration. net zero carbon emissions, whether the federal
government or private industry should take the
All remaining candidates have pledged to formally
lead in new energy investment, and the role of
recommit the United States to the goals of the
nuclear energy and natural gas in a low-carbon
Paris Agreement and, with the possible excep-
future.
tion of Michael Bloomberg, all have expressed
support for the Green New Deal framework. Nonetheless, all Democratic candidates present
a stark contrast to the Trump administration’s
Taken at face value, this means a Democratic
non-existent climate position. If there is a Trump
president will seek to not only curtail fossil
administration climate policy, it appears to be
fuel usage and implement programs to reduce
playing down the threats posed by global warm-
carbon emissions to net zero by around 2050,
ing and goading the Democrats into adopting
but also establish ambitious climate-linked social
aggressive policies that could prove too radical
programs for worker retraining, job creation,
for moderate voters.
improved health insurance, and reduced wealth
inequality. Before the candidates get to contrast their climate
vision with President Trump’s lack of interest in
the topic, they must first win the Democratic
nomination. Differences in climate ambition and
policy among the Democratic challengers may
yet play an important role in the primary race.
US President Donald Trump speaks to 5000 contractors at the Shell Chemicals Petrochemical Complex in
Pennsylvania, August 2019 (Getty)
UNITED STATES STUDIES CENTRE
2 FIGHTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: THE DEMOCRATIC RACE AND CLIMATE POLITICS
INTRODUCTION: A GROWING CONSENSUS
ON PARIS AND THE GREEN NEW DEAL
While climate was an early talking point for most The most obvious example of the Green New
Democratic candidates, it has remained more of Deal’s influence is the prominence candidates
a slow burn issue rather than one the challengers are giving to compensation schemes — both for
have used to differentiate themselves from their displaced fossil fuel industry workers as well as
rivals. Unlike healthcare and immigration, sharp communities characterised as victims of these
exchanges between the candidates on climate industries (see Table 1). In an
policy details have not been as prominent. The election context, this repre- THE MAJOR
platforms for the major candidates are ambitious sents a play for two groups CANDIDATES HAVE
and far-reaching when compared with both the — an attempt to entice miners FORMALLY COMMITTED
mainstream Republican and the Trump admin- and refinery workers away TO THE PARIS CLIMATE
istration’s positions. from their management, and AGREEMENT GOAL
to encourage a strong turn out
OF RESTRICTING
The major candidates have formally committed GLOBAL WARMING
from those living near drilling TO BETWEEN 1.5 AND
to the Paris Climate Agreement goal of restrict-
rigs and petrochemical plants. 2 DEGREES CELSIUS,
ing global warming to between 1.5 and 2 degrees
WHICH MEANS
Celsius, which means carbon emissions need to The emergence of Michael CARBON EMISSIONS
be cut in half by 2030 and at net zero by 2050. In Bloomberg as a leading NEED TO BE CUT IN
adopting this timetable, candidates are acknowl- candidate has created some HALF BY 2030 AND AT
edging that within 30 years, renewables would uncertainty, especially around NET ZERO BY 2050.
likely need to replace coal and gas for power support for the Green New
generation, and battery power would likely need Deal. While strongly supporting the Green New
to replace oil for all forms of transportation. Deal decarbonisation targets and especially
the need to aggressively promote renewables,
Most of the Democratic candidates support
Bloomberg has described its broader goals as
the Green New Deal, a non-binding resolution
politically unrealistic.
co-authored by freshman Democratic Congress-
woman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Demo-
cratic Senator Ed Markey. The Green New Deal
is less proscriptive than the Paris Climate Agree-
ment but provides greater scope for future flex-
ibility and nuance. It does, however, compel
candidates to use decarbonisation investments
as a tool to transform the US economy in a fash-
ion that promotes wealth redistribution.
UNITED STATES STUDIES CENTRE
FIGHTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: THE DEMOCRATIC RACE AND CLIMATE POLITICS
3
DIFFERENCES IN CAMPAIGN POSITIONS
The degree of consistency in the climate posi- During the recent Nevada debate, the moder-
tions of the leading candidates was not predicted ators explored, for perhaps the first time, if the
by many analysts, as many expected significant candidates could be split between pragmatism
differences between progressive and moderate and ambition on climate in a similar fashion to
Democratic candidates to emerge. Perhaps one the differences we see on healthcare. While this
key reason climate has not been more of a battle- portion of the debate didn’t generate too many
ground is the unexpectedly strong stance taken headlines there were clear signs that Bloomb-
early in the campaign by Joe Biden in the form erg will argue that winning the election is the
of his support for the Green New Deal.1 While primary goal with Warren and Sanders pushing
this may have disappointed climate activists who the necessity for bold action and the benefits
wanted to see their cause take a more prominent of the Green New Deal. Biden focussed on his
role in the early debates, differences in climate international pedigree which he will use to drive
ambition and strategy could still play a role once Chinese action on decarbonisation.
the number of candidates has been thinned out.
Table 1. Summary of Democrat candidates’ climate plans
Biden Bloomberg2 Sanders Warren
Zero net emissions by 20503 Probably
Green New Deal Probably not
Public cost over 10 years
1.7 Not specified 10.94 3
(US$ trillions)
Private contribution (US$ trillions) 3.3 Not specified Nil but not
specified
Job creation (millions of jobs) 3 Not specified 10 1.2
Carbon tax Not specified and 5 Maybe
Payment scheme presented Not specified Not specified
Public ownership of generation Probably not
No federal
Fracking ban 6
leases
Nuclear 7 Unclear
Carbon capture Unclear Not specified Not specified
UNITED STATES STUDIES CENTRE
4 FIGHTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: THE DEMOCRATIC RACE AND CLIMATE POLITICS
Some of the other key differences between the be “catalysed”.8 As these differences are further
leading candidates are summarised in Table 1. explored in the final stages of the nomination
Beyond almost uniform support for the Paris process and during the general election itself,
Agreement and the Green New Deal, the table commitment to the principles of the Green New
makes clear that the candidates are split on Deal will come into focus. Candidates will be
nuclear power and whether gas produced by quizzed on how much expenditure and political
fracking can be used until renewables become capital will be spent on all aspects of decarbon-
more prominent. isation as well as how they will use the decar-
bonisation process as a mechanism to transform
Another key difference between candidates is the
the way the US economy works. If implemented,
amount of public money they propose to spend
these changes will impact employment, health-
on decarbonisation, specifically how much of
care, and wealth inequality trends within US soci-
this will come from the federal government and
ety.
how much private, state and local investment will
What is carbon capture?
Carbon capture is the technology for captur- Liquefied carbon dioxide from the process
ing carbon dioxide from large point sources, is stored in suitable underground formations.
such as coal-fired power plants, cement facto- Carbon storage is also well-established in
ries or steelworks. The gases from these facili- enhanced oil recovery where carbon dioxide is
ties pass through a separation unit that removes pumped underground to displace oil.
the carbon as liquefied carbon dioxide. Carbon
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
capture is a well-established for removing carbon
Climate Change (UNIPCC) lists carbon capture
dioxide from natural gas. The use of carbon
and storage as key decarbonisation technolo-
capture to reduce carbon emissions from indus-
gies and the only methods capable of negative
trial sources is still being developed, meaning
emissions — the permanent removal of carbon
it requires government support and subsidy.
dioxide from the atmosphere.
Carbon capture can also be used for direct air
capture — the removal of carbon dioxide from air. Opposition to carbon capture is based on
concerns over leaks from underground storage
and that its use will prolong the life of coal and
gas-powered generation.
UNITED STATES STUDIES CENTRE
FIGHTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: THE DEMOCRATIC RACE AND CLIMATE POLITICS
5WHY IS A POSITION ON
NUCLEAR POWER IMPORTANT?
Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren mostly commissioned prior to the Three Mile
see no role for nuclear energy in a decarbon- Island accident in 1979 which means they have
ised future, perhaps recognising longstanding an average age of more than 40 years. Several
and long-lived progressive opposition to nuclear reactors have closed in recent times citing weak
power.9 They may need to convince pundits and power prices and the need to make costly safe-
pro-nuclear voters that their opposition is logi- ty-related upgrades. These closures will be offset
cal rather than an outdated historical reflex.10 As by two new reactors — Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle
shown Figure 1, just under 20 per cent of US elec- power plant in Georgia — due to come on line
tricity comes from nuclear plants and with an soon. The cost for these two, large baseload units
annual availability of ~93 per cent, the nuclear (1250 megawatt) is currently estimated at US$25
fleet is an important source of stable, zero carbon billion, an 80 per cent increase over the cost esti-
baseload power. The current reactors were mate when construction started in 2012.
Figure 1. US electricity net generation by sector
2,500,000
Coal Hydroelectric
Natural gas Wind
Nuclear Petroleum
Million kilowatthours
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
10
20 2
14
16
18
50
52
54
56
19 8
60
19 2
64
66
68
70
74
76
80
84
86
19 8
90
94
96
20 8
00
20 2
04
20 6
20 8
72
78
82
92
1
6
0
5
8
9
0
0
20
20
19
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
Source: US Energy Information Administration,
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T07.02A#/?f=A
UNITED STATES STUDIES CENTRE
6 FIGHTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: THE DEMOCRATIC RACE AND CLIMATE POLITICSNew nuclear is expensive and takes a long time In a primary context, opposition to nuclear will
to build, so opposition from a potential Demo- get full support from progressive environmental
cratic administration will not have an immediate groups. In the general election, expect Repub-
impact on the US power landscape. Support- licans to use nuclear as a climate wedge issue.
ers of nuclear power, however, see a critical Some communities may be happy to see their
role for the next administration in encouraging nuclear power plants close but some may value
new capacity to be ready when the existing fleet the traditionally secure, high paying jobs.
comes to the end of its practical operating life.
This reflects a belief that full decarbonisation of
the electricity sector by 2050 will need the relia-
bility of baseload nuclear to balance the intermit-
tent nature of large wind and solar installations.
The high cost and extended construction time-
lines for large scale nuclear is one reason that Joe
Biden’s policies support research into smaller
scale, sub-200 megawatt nuclear reactors that
may have the flexibility to better support a future
renewable heavy generation mix.11
A potentially more pressing issue for a new
administration will be how to treat the existing
fleet. Nuclear reactors in the United States need
to be recertified after operating for 40 years with
further recertification reviews being required
every 20 years thereafter. Most of the current An anti-nuclear activist in New York, February 2020 (Getty)
fleet has completed the first recertification and
the older units will require a second recertifica-
tion starting around 2029. Some utilities could
decide to close down if faced with a strongly
anti-nuclear administration in the White House.
A Sanders administration would make this an
easy choice because there would be a mora-
torium on license renewals. While Warren is
opposed to expanding the nuclear fleet, she has
not ruled out license renewal. This leaves Biden
as the most accommodating of ongoing nuclear
generation.12
UNITED STATES STUDIES CENTRE
FIGHTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: THE DEMOCRATIC RACE AND CLIMATE POLITICS
7WHAT HAPPENS IF FRACKING IS BANNED?
In contrast to nuclear power, a ban or even a sharp Mexico, Wyoming, North Dakota, Colorado and
reduction in fracking would have an immediate Utah. Politically, they are not all swing states, but
and profound impact on oil and gas production Colorado and New Mexico, in particular, will be
as well as local employment and economic activ- important to the Democrats in the general elec-
ity across a number of areas across the United tion for both the Electoral College and the Senate.
States. Horizontal drilling and fracking have been If a nationwide ban on fracking was initiated, as
responsible for a 95 per cent increase in domes- Warren appears to be considering, domestic oil
tic oil production and a 60 per cent increase in and gas production would drop by at least 50
gas output since 2005.13 This surge has made the per cent virtually overnight, with major impacts
United States self-sufficient in oil and gas, revital- in producing states such as Texas, Pennsylva-
ised local manufacturing, and played a key role in nia, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Ohio, Alaska and West
the 50 per cent reduction in coal consumption. In Virginia as well as neighbouring regions that have
short, and as Figures 2 and 3 show, fracking has experienced flow-on economic benefits (in some
increased substantially and a ban would have cases without the negatives of the drilling itself.
major and immediate implications.
The potential economic and political implica-
What about restricting anti-fracking initiatives tions of restricting the use of fracking finally got
to imposing limits on new fossil fuel extraction some air time during the most recent televised
from federal lands, as Michael Bloomberg seems debate. Sanders and Warren leaned heav-
to be favouring?14 This would be less disruptive ily on the potential for the Green New Deal, a
but would still have a significant impact, with 26 rapid transition to renewables and investment
per cent of oil and 13 per cent of gas currently in climate-resilient infrastructure to replace any
coming from lands under Department of the lost oil and gas jobs. Bloomberg saw an ongo-
Interior control.15 Such a move would be felt ing role for natural gas and fracking at least until
most strongly in western states such as New coal was completely gone. He also raised stricter
regulations on methane leaks as a policy to mini-
mise the worst climate impacts of fracking and
the use of natural gas. The Democratic elector-
ate clearly expects its presidential candidate to
promote decarbonisation and push strongly
pro-renewable policies. Policies to actively curb
domestic fossil fuel production will, however, set
the scene for a key battle not just with President
Trump and his team but with many Americans
still unconvinced the country can survive with-
out a strong domestic fossil fuels supply line or
nuclear power.
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren visits the
Big River United Energy ethanol facility in Iowa, June 2019 (Getty)
UNITED STATES STUDIES CENTRE
8 FIGHTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: THE DEMOCRATIC RACE AND CLIMATE POLITICSFigure 2. US shale and tight Figure 3. US dry shale gas production
oil production
Rest of the United States Rest of the United States
Austin Chalk (Louisiana & Texas) Fayetteville (Arkansas)
Mississippian (Oklahoma) Mississippian (Okalahoma)
Niobrara-Codell (Colorado & Wyoming) Niobrara-Codell (Colorado & Wyoming)
Bakken (North Dakota & Montana) Bakken (North Dakota & Montana)
Woodford (Oklahoma) Woodford (Oklahoma)
Bonespring (Texas & New Mexico Permian) Barnett (Texas)
Eagle Ford (Texas) Eagle Ford (Texas)
Wolfcamp (TeXas & New Mexico Permian) Haynesville (Louisiana & Texas)
Spraberry (Texas Permian) Utica (Ohio, Pennsylvania & West Virginia)
Permian (Texas & New Mexico)
Marcellus (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio & New York)
Million barrels per day Billion cubic feet per day
9.0 80
70
7.5
60
6.0
50
4.5 40
30
3.0
20
1.5
10
0 0
11
3
5
17
9
11
3
5
7
9
07
07
09
09
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Source: US Energy Information Administration
UNITED STATES STUDIES CENTRE
FIGHTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: THE DEMOCRATIC RACE AND CLIMATE POLITICS
9THE COST OF DECARBONISATION
AND WHO PROVIDES THE MONEY
While differences on nuclear and to a greater Before the successful nominee can shift back to
extent fracking are important and will be featured the centre for the general election, the leading
more prominently in the general election, the candidates will need to answer philosophical
cost of decarbonisation programs and climate- questions from an energised Democratic rank
linked changes to the nation’s key economic and file about whether decarbonisation requires
structures could be more fundamental to the radical restructuring of the US economic model
outcome in 2020. or if US capitalism combined with strong federal
oversight remains the best way to harness the
Table 1 shows that candidates Biden and Warren
nation’s energy and dynamism for such a chal-
are promising public funding between US$1.7
lenging transformation.
and US$3.0 trillion over ten years, with tax and
other incentives to promote additional private, Bernie Sanders is under no doubt that the
state and local investment. The public compo- system needs changing. He is advocating for
nent of these plans roughly equates to an annual future renewable generation capacity to be
expenditure of between 1 and 2 per cent of US government-owned.17 This is presented as not
GDP. As a point of reference, this is a similar only the best decarbonisation pathway but also
range that the UK Committee on Climate Change as a means to achieve broad social benefits for
estimated the United Kingdom would need to the country. This approach makes the Sanders
spend to achieve net zero carbon emissions by plan an outlier — at US$10.9 trillion over ten
2050.16 This could be a useful talking point should years ($16.3 trillion over 15 years), it is the most
the candidates be asked to justify the level of expensive plan and the only one that excludes
proposed expenditure. It could also be used by significant private investment. The full amount
Republicans linking the candidates to Europe- will come directly from the public purse. Under
an-style big-spending policies. this plan, the US government will build, own
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden taps the nose of a person in a polar bear costume during a
campaign event in New Hampshire, February 2020 (Getty)
UNITED STATES STUDIES CENTRE
10 FIGHTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: THE DEMOCRATIC RACE AND CLIMATE POLITICSand operate much of the nation’s new power Discussion of where the public component of the
generation capacity, leading — in theory — to money will come from is anodyne at this stage
lower power bills. The Sanders plan looks a lot of the campaign. Carbon taxes do not have the
like a rerun of the 1935 Public Utility Act debate universal support they once enjoyed but they
that pitted Roosevelt and his New Deal against are still part of the raising revenue discussion.
Wendell Willkie and the Commonwealth and The prospect of increased taxes
Southern;18 a comparison, one suspects, that sits from millions of new jobs and THE PROSPECT OF
well with the Sanders team. health savings from cleaner air INCREASED TAXES
and water are ubiquitous in the FROM MILLIONS
The other candidates, with varying degrees of OF NEW JOBS AND
talking points of the Democratic
enthusiasm, endorse a generally more traditional HEALTH SAVINGS
candidates, as is making the rich
public-private partnership model in which the
and guilty pay. Taxes for corpo-
FROM CLEANER AIR
government combines direct funding with poli- AND WATER ARE
rations and the wealthy, accord- UBIQUITOUS IN THE
cies aimed at encouraging state, local and private
ing to many of the candidates, TALKING POINTS OF
investment. While Elizabeth Warren is not shy in
will be increased and the fossil THE DEMOCRATIC
her desire for sweeping economic changes, she CANDIDATES, AS IS
fuel industry is likely to see
appears less willing to use decarbonisation as MAKING THE RICH
increased fees and litigation to
the vehicle for it. Her climate policy leans more
pay for past damage. Echoing
AND GUILTY PAY.
towards federal support of green utilities than
the 2008 Obama remark about
ownership.19 The remaining candidates, espe-
bankrupting coal plant owners,20 it seems the
cially Michael Bloomberg, are perhaps less likely
fossil fuel industry is to help fund its own demise.
to use decarbonisation as a tool to restructure
A greater focus on where and from whom decar-
US economic systems. Their final positions will
bonisation funds will be sourced will, no doubt,
likely become strong on emission targets and
be an important topic in the general election. This
renewable investment and more nuanced on the
could be a pivotal question if enough of those
broader goals of the Green New Deal.
who favour lower emissions expect someone
The longer Sanders remains a leading contender, else to foot the bill.
the more likely a public versus private owner-
ship debate will feature in debates and advertis-
ing. Perhaps Bloomberg’s involvement in future
debates and in the Super Tuesday primaries will
be the trigger to have this issue examined in more
detail.
UNITED STATES STUDIES CENTRE
FIGHTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: THE DEMOCRATIC RACE AND CLIMATE POLITICS
11SUMMARY
The Democratic candidates appear committed The Trump administration and Republicans
to fighting the general election with policies to will likely criticise the drama of a climate emer-
sharply ramp up US decarbonisation efforts. gency and highlight the importance of finan-
Republicans will be hoping that Trump’s rejec- cial management over reckless spending. More
tion of the Paris Agreement has goaded Demo- robust Republican voices will talk of creeping
crats into handcuffing themselves to politically socialism, rampant globalisation and a Demo-
suicidal goals. Will the average voter see action cratic willingness to destroy the foundations of
on climate as welcome and overdue or a threat a proud and free United States.
to jobs and the economy?
It is not uncommon to hear candidates declare
While Bloomberg may emerge as a viable that “this election is the most important decision
moderate candidate on topics like wealth taxes voters have faced in their lifetime”. Maybe in
and regulation of the finance industry, his past 2020, this will be a valid claim. If Donald Trump
positions have been strongly anti-coal and he remains the president, the contrast with his
will almost certainly match the other candidates challenger on climate change is likely to be
in his zeal to decarbonise the generation sector. dramatic, especially if Sanders or Warren is the
What he believes this will cost, how he will pay Democratic challenger. Of the two progressive
for it, and how he plans to decarbonise other challengers in Warren and Sanders, the latter
sectors of the economy remain to be seen. On will present the sharpest contrast — to both
emission targets, however, a Bloomberg presi- the incumbent president and to the accepted
dential campaign is likely to broadly match the wisdom of privately-owned generation assets.
ambition of the other leading candidates.
With potentially so many points of policy differ-
ence, it is still too early to say how critical climate
policy will be during the general election. It will
be important, but so will immigration, health-
care, and the election of the next Supreme Court
judges. It will also depend on who the Demo-
cratic challenger is and how their stance is
moderated after the primaries are over. Based on
the positions of the current frontrunners, voters
will have a real choice on how the country prior-
itises and responds to calls for decarbonisation.
Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg speaks at a
conference during the COP25 Climate Summit in Madrid,
December 2019 (Getty)
UNITED STATES STUDIES CENTRE
12 FIGHTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: THE DEMOCRATIC RACE AND CLIMATE POLITICSIMPLICATIONS FOR AUSTRALIA
If the Democrats win the 2020 election with a The election of Bernie Sanders and the priva-
robust pro-Paris commitment, Australia will tisation of new US generation capability would
be put in a difficult position. It will be increas- encourage those supporting a
ingly exposed as a climate laggard with a dismal similar approach in Australia.
greenhouse gas reduction performance relative Until relatively recently, public IF THE DEMOCRATS
WIN THE 2020
to international peers. A majority of Australians ownership of generation assets
ELECTION WITH A
acknowledge climate change as a reality and was the norm in Australia, ROBUST PRO-PARIS
want the government to take action to mitigate it.21 an approach revisited by the COMMITMENT,
Turnbull government with the AUSTRALIA WILL BE
Under a Democratic president, the United States PUT IN A DIFFICULT
Snowy 2.0 project. While, in
will join the United Kingdom and a growing POSITION. IT WILL
theory, this could include a
number of other nations in formally supporting BE INCREASINGLY
government-sponsored coal-
a 2050 net zero carbon emissions target. Austral- EXPOSED AS A CLIMATE
fired plant in north Queensland, LAGGARD WITH A
ia’s current coalition government appears very
a Sanders presidency could DISMAL GREENHOUSE
unlikely to join this list but a growing international
push Canberra investment not GAS REDUCTION
consensus will put further pressure on a govern- PERFORMANCE
just in stored hydro but also
ment that has widely disparate views on energy RELATIVE TO
large-scale batteries and even
policy. INTERNATIONAL PEERS.
more unconventional tech-
Australia’s Labor party is, unsurprisingly, closer nologies such as commercial
to the Democratic position having last week production hydrogen, which is the most obvious
committed to the 2050 target. This commitment route by which Australia can offset the loss of
sits uncomfortably with statements supporting coal and gas export income.
the continued export of Australian coal and natu-
Irrespective of who it is, if the next US president
ral gas. A US move to sharply limit fracking will
is one of the current Democratic candidates
establish a genuine international precedent — it
and they succeed in driving strong US action on
will be the most significant and meaningful exam-
climate, there will be ramifications for Australia.
ple of a fossil fuel producing nation accepting the
Its current international climate stance will
economic pain of proactively cutting produc-
become increasingly untenable, causing tensions
tion rather than passively waiting for a gradual
on energy policy to continue to grow within both
demand-side response. Australia will be under
the coalition and the Labor party.
pressure to follow suit.
UNITED STATES STUDIES CENTRE
FIGHTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: THE DEMOCRATIC RACE AND CLIMATE POLITICS
13ENDNOTES
1. Dino Grandoni, Jeff Stein, “Joe Biden embraces 12. It should be noted that the Bloomberg campaign has
Green New Deal as he releases climate plan,” not made public a nuclear power policy. One can only
The Washington Post, 4 Jun 2019. Accessed suspect that his prior statements on nuclear power are
online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- indicative of his views as a presidential candidate. Those
environment/2019/06/04/joe-biden-embraces- views were more pragmatic and accepted the need for
green-new-deal-he-releases-climate-plan/ nuclear as a pathway to eliminate coal and gas generation.
2. Bloomberg’s published climate plan is short on detail 13. Congressional Research Service, “U.S. Crude Oil and
but is unequivocally opposed to coal and gas-based Natural Gas Production in Federal and Non-federal
generation. The expected cost of decarbonisation, the Areas,” 23 October 2018. Accessed online: https://
public/private split and how the funds will be raised crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42432; U.S.
are not specified in the current campaign documents. Energy Information Administration, “Petroleum and other
“Plans,” Mike Bloomberg 2020. Accessed online: Liquids,” current to 2018. Accessed online: https://www.
https://www.mikebloomberg.com/getting-it-done eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm
3. Full commitment to the Paris Accord means 14. Ben Geman, “Sanders and Bloomberg split over fracking,”
reducing emissions at a rate to keep warming Axios, 20 February 2020. Accessed online: https://www.
below 2⁰C and ideally below 1.5⁰C. Current axios.com/sanders-bloomberg-fracking-democratic-
projections require significant emission reductions debate-0a01eb01-876e-402e-90d7-e36a62909f7f.html
by 2030 and net zero emissions by ~ 2050. 15. Congressional Research Service, “U.S. Crude Oil and
4. The Sanders plan is for US$16.3 trillion over 15 years: Natural Gas Production in Federal and Non-federal
Lisa Friedman, “Bernie Sanders’ ‘Green New Deal’: A $16 Areas,” 23 October 2018. Accessed online: https://
Trillion Climate Plan,” The New York Times, 22 August 2019. crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42432; U.S.
Accessed online: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/ Energy Information Administration, “Petroleum and other
climate/bernie-sanders-climate-change.html Liquids,” current to 2018. Accessed online: https://www.
5. Sanders was an outspoken supporter of carbon taxes eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm
during the 2016 campaign. Support for this initiative is 16. Committee on Climate Change, “Net Zero: The UK’s
much less enthusiastic during the current campaign: contribution to stopping global warming,” May
Alex Seitz-Wald, “Bernie Sanders Unveils Climate 2019. Accessed online: https://www.theccc.org.uk/
Plan,” NBC News, 7 December 2015. Accessed online: wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Net-Zero-The-UKs-
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ contribution-to-stopping-global-warming.pdf
bernie-sanders-unveils-climate-plan-n475366. While 17. Gavin Bade, “Power to the people: Bernie calls for
not explicitly excluded, it no longer appears as a federal takeover of electricity production,” Politico,
major part of the Sanders’ climate response. 2 February 2020. Accessed online: https://www.
6. A day 1 ban on all fracking — mechanism politico.com/news/2020/02/02/bernie-sanders-
to achieve this not specified. climate-federal-electricity-production-110117
7. Explicit support for small scale modular nuclear units. 18. C. Stephen Heard, Jr. “When Reason Trumped
8. This would largely be done through tax incentives, Politics: The remarkable political partnership of
permitting facilitation and federal support for Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Wendell L. Willke,”
local and state renewable standards. The FDR Foundation, 7 March 2016. Accessed online:
http://fdrfoundation.org/publications/willkie/
9. Justin Calma, “Democrats are divided on nuclear
energy to stop climate change,” The Verge, 5 September 19. “Tackling the climate crisis head on,” Elizabeth
2019. Accessed online: https://www.theverge. Warren campaign website. Accessed online: https://
com/2019/9/5/20850763/climate-change-cnn-town-hall- elizabethwarren.com/plans/climate-change
democrat-candidates-nuclear-energy-2020-elections 20. Erica Martinson, “Uttered in 2008, still haunting
10. Opposition to nuclear is well established as a litmus Obama,” Politico, 4 March 2012. Accessed online:
test in the progressive environmental movement. The https://www.politico.com/story/2012/04/uttered-
environmental group Greenpeace, for example, was in-2008-still-haunting-obama-in-2012-074892
founded to oppose to nuclear testing altogether. The 21. Simon Jackman, Shaun Ratcliff, Zoe Meers, Jared
basis for the opposition is overtly safety and there is Mondshein, Elliott Brennan. “Public opinion in the age
certainly logic to that. But nuclear is also expensive of Trump: The United States and Australia compared,”
so many progressives feel that money spent on United States Studies Centre, December 2019. Accessed
nuclear is money not being spent on renewables. online: https://www.ussc.edu.au/analysis/public-
11. “Joe’s Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution opinion-in-the-united-states-and-australia-compared
and Environmental Justice,” Joe Biden
campaign website, 15 January 2019. Accessed
online: https://joebiden.com/climate/
UNITED STATES STUDIES CENTRE
14 FIGHTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: THE DEMOCRATIC RACE AND CLIMATE POLITICSABOUT THE AUTHOR
DR JIM ORCHARD
Dr Jim Orchard is a Melbourne-based energy analyst. He spent
more than 30 years in the resource and energy industry including
12 years in the United States as an executive with a major energy
producer. He runs the journeytozerocarbon.com blog using first-
hand experience with US energy politics to explain the political,
technical and investment challenges to achieving net zero carbon
emissions. He graduated from the University of New South Wales
and has a PhD in industrial chemistry.
UNITED STATES STUDIES CENTRE
FIGHTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: THE DEMOCRATIC RACE AND CLIMATE POLITICS
15UNITED STATES STUDIES CENTRE Institute Building (H03), City Rd The University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia +61 2 9351 7249 us-studies@sydney.edu.au USSC.EDU.AU
You can also read
